U.S. and G5 + 1 Cave to Iran in Nuclear "Deal"

jbg · July 15, 2015

Compensation for Operation Ajax?

It's about time.

Unless you wanted the fun of Khomeni types 25 years earlier, sure.

Moonlight Graham · July 15, 2015

It is not clear to me why any deal was required.

To prevent war by US or Israel. Iran was clearly going to build a bomb unless it was stopped. The options to stop them was either via diplomacy or military means.

Derek 2.0 · July 15, 2015

Just like the legacy of a famous British PM is "peace in our times."

I thought that too........less then a year after those words were uttered, most of Europe was at war.....

Edited July 15, 2015 by Derek 2.0

Derek 2.0 · July 15, 2015

It is not clear to me why any deal was required. Seems to me this was a self centered exercise on the part of Obama to create a legacy except his legacy will likely been how took the shackles off a state known to support terrorism in return for promises that mean nothing (i.e. sure sanctions go back on by Iran will have time to prepare for them when they do).

Exactly, Chamberlain had a legacy too........dying of bowl cancer well London was being bombed.

TimG · July 15, 2015

The options to stop them was either via diplomacy or military means.

Well you are assuming that "stopping them" is a feasible option. I don't understand why anyone thinks that Iran will not renege on the deal as soon as it suits them. I don't like this deal because it assumes the Iranians are negotiating in good faith. If such good faith actually existed they would have agreed to an inspection regime long ago. Edited July 15, 2015 by TimG

eyeball · July 15, 2015

Unless you wanted the fun of Khomeni types 25 years earlier, sure.

I thought it was the fun of NDP types that had us crapping our pants?

Moonlight Graham · July 15, 2015

Well you are assuming that "stopping them" is a feasible option. I don't understand why anyone thinks that Iran will not renege on the deal as soon as it suits them. I don't like this deal because it assumes the Iranians are negotiating in good faith. If such good faith actually existed they would have agreed to an inspection regime long ago.

There's no "faith" in this deal. It's based on verifiable observation by inspectors. If Iran breaks terms of the deal they will be punished again by sanctions, and talk of attacking them will resume.

Why would Iran let inspectors in before when it would provide them with little or no benefit? How does the US negotiate in "good faith" when they threaten war against Iran and continually attack Iran's neighbouring countries? The main reasons Iran wants a nuke is so that they won't some day end up like Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria - targets of US-led regime change. Israel also has nukes pointing at Tehran. The US and Israel are clearly existential threats to the Iranian regime. Iran would be stupid not to want to pursue nukes.

sharkman · July 15, 2015

Observation by inspectors? Can you even say that with a straight face after all that's gone on WRT inspectors in the ME?

Moonlight Graham · July 15, 2015

Well you are assuming that "stopping them" is a feasible option. I don't understand why anyone thinks that Iran will not renege on the deal as soon as it suits them. I don't like this deal because it assumes the Iranians are negotiating in good faith. If such good faith actually existed they would have agreed to an inspection regime long ago.

As an aside, I understand your concerns. This deal does give Iran a bit of wiggle room in terms of preparation. It gives them breathing room to strategize if they want to break the deal and pursue a nuke. Given the loosening of the conventional arms embargo with this deal, it also could allow them to prepare more militarily in case of future attack by US/Israel if they restart the nuke program.

In the end though, I don't think any of that would be enough to stop a US attack. This deal is still worth a shot, if there's a chance of avoiding war it must be pursued. Iran has serious reasons to follow this deal, and the US has an excellent bargaining position: "We've damaged your economy with sanctions. We've shown we're willing and able to attack your neighbours, and we'll bomb the hell out of you too unless you agree to a deal to stop making nukes".

GostHacked · July 15, 2015

Pakistan and India got the bomb from Canada, not Reagan.

And Al-Queda was created and funded by the USA/CIA. (see Afghanistan)

Shady · July 15, 2015

This deal is horrible, and negotiated from a position of weakness when it shouldn't have been. All this is going to lead to is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and the new money Iran receives will be used to strengthen terrorist proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. You know it's a bad deal with Israel, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, etc are all in agreement.

Shady · July 15, 2015

Obama couldn't even get the journalist and pastor being held captive by the Iranian regime released. You'd think that would be part of the negotiations. It's really absurd.

cybercoma · July 15, 2015

Obama couldn't even get the journalist and pastor being held captive by the Iranian regime released. You'd think that would be part of the negotiations. It's really absurd.

The United States has very little to offer Iran. Their major trading partners are in Europe and Asia. The US needs to repair its diplomatic relationship with Iran if it's going to make any strides with them.

Big Guy · July 15, 2015

Who gave the USA the right to decide who gets the bomb and who does not? Iran is a sovereign nation - just like Israel, Canada, Brazil, Russia, etc. Will the USA now decide if Canada or Brazil or Germany or ... have the right to develop nuclear technology?

So if the Russians decide that Canada is building ice breakers to take control of the Northwest Passage then it has the right to bomb ship building facilities in BC, Quebec and the Maritimes?

Why has it become a "given" that some sovereign nations are allowed certain things (including purchasing weapons) and other sovereign nations are not?

Who gave Russia permission to develop nuclear weapons? Who gave Israel, Pakistan, North Korea, and the USA the right to develop nuclear weapons?

Edited July 15, 2015 by Big Guy

TimG · July 15, 2015

Who gave the USA the right to decide who gets the bomb and who does not?

This document: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Treaty_on_the_Non-Proliferation_of_Nuclear_Weapons

Of course, you are free to argue that the NPT should be torn up but you should state that specifically instead of trying to obscure your argument in the rhetoric of national sovereignty.

Keep in mind that point of the NPT is not that different from local gun control laws so if you oppose the NPT you should also oppose all local restrictions on firearms.

Edited July 15, 2015 by TimG

Big Guy · July 15, 2015

I'll try to not be obscure;

My definition - "Sovereignty - The supreme, absolute and uncontrollable power by which an independent state is governed and from which all specific political powers are derived; the international independence of a state, combined with the right and power of regulating its internal affairs without foreign interference."

Treaties indicate nations intentions at the time of signing. As time progresses and conditions change then treaties are changed, ignored or re-written. When governments of nations change then treaties are changed, ignored or rewritten.

I assume that you believe that there are some countries in the world who have the right to sovereignty and some who do not. That is your view and not mine. I hope I have not obscured that argument.

TimG · July 15, 2015

I assume that you believe that there are some countries in the world who have the right to sovereignty and some who do not. That is your view and not mine. I hope I have not obscured that argument.

I take it then that you believe there should be no restrictions on the development and sale of nuclear weapons and anyone with enough cash should be able buy/build one? Because that is what you are basically arguing by hiding behind the mantle of sovereignty. i.e. you can't have a regime that restricts the proliferation of nuclear weapons unless you have a rather arbitrary rule that countries that don't already have nuclear weapons should not seek to acquire them.

BTW - what is your position on gun control?

Edited July 15, 2015 by TimG

Shady · July 15, 2015

The United States has very little to offer Iran.

That's absurd. The lifting of sanctions for one.

Bryan · July 15, 2015

Who gave the USA the right to decide who gets the bomb and who does not? Iran is a sovereign nation - just like Israel, Canada, Brazil, Russia, etc. Will the USA now decide if Canada or Brazil or Germany or ... have the right to develop nuclear technology?

As much as I hate the point you're making, it's a very good one. No one in their right mind thinks a nuclear armed Iran is a good idea. But if others countries are within their rights to have them, so are they -- regardless of what any piece of paper might say to the contrary.

jbg · July 15, 2015

I thought that too........less then a year after those words were uttered, most of Europe was at war.....

I forget whether Munich was October 1937 or 1938. In the latter case it was less than a year. If the former about two years.

sharkman · July 15, 2015

This deal is horrible, and negotiated from a position of weakness when it shouldn't have been. All this is going to lead to is a nuclear arms race in the Middle East, and the new money Iran receives will be used to strengthen terrorist proxies in Syria, Lebanon and Yemen. You know it's a bad deal with Israel, Saudia Arabia, Egypt, Jordan, the UAE, etc are all in agreement.

This is the bottom line. And they couldn't even get Americans released, Kerry has got to be the worst negotiator in history. Even old Jimmy Carter could have done better while giving nukes, money and trading restrictions away.

jbg · July 15, 2015

There's no "faith" in this deal. It's based on verifiable observation by inspectors. If Iran breaks terms of the deal they will be punished again by sanctions, and talk of attacking them will resume.

Do you really think that any country but MAYBE the U.S. would seriously re-impose sanctions? And if they do they'll be far more porous than they are now. And what about long-term deals then in progress? Anyone who thinks that works is on better drugs than I can afford.

Why would Iran let inspectors in before when it would provide them with little or no benefit? How does the US negotiate in "good faith" when they threaten war against Iran and continually attack Iran's neighbouring countries? The main reasons Iran wants a nuke is so that they won't some day end up like Iraq or Afghanistan or Syria - targets of US-led regime change. Israel also has nukes pointing at Tehran. The US and Israel are clearly existential threats to the Iranian regime. Iran would be stupid not to want to pursue nukes.

You have got to be kidding. Iran wants nukes so that it's politically impossible for SA or Israel to reject their demands, or credibly threaten to attack. And given the Taliban's dubious record of cooperating in the 9/11 attacks was regime change a bad idea in Afghanistan? Does the Taliban have some administrative talent of which I'm unaware?

The three countries you mentioned, as of 2000, were enemy countries, pure and simple. Why should we agree to give them lethal weapons and pay them to install those. And as for the argument that Iran is just getting back its own money, how about these kind of victims get paid first? Woman injured in 1993 WTC bombing gets $5.4M after 22 years

Moonlight Graham · July 15, 2015

And Al-Queda was created and funded by the USA/CIA. (see Afghanistan)

How did the US "create" al-Qaeda? That claim is false.

Moonlight Graham · July 15, 2015

Do you really think that any country but MAYBE the U.S. would seriously re-impose sanctions?

Why wouldn't they?

You have got to be kidding. Iran wants nukes so that it's politically impossible for SA or Israel to reject their demands, or credibly threaten to attack.

True on that last point, but why would SA or Israel need to accept Iran's "demands"? Israel has nukes, and SA has the backing of a nuclear US. Iran is simply trying to balance power in the region back towards their end and forever take the option of Western-led regime change off the table.

If Iran got hold of a nuke, SA would be quick to follow. Having bitter enemies like Israel, Iran, and Saudi Arabia having nukes in the most volatile region in the world would be horrifying for the world. Also consider the potential for absolute religious kooks similar to ISIS to one day rule in one of those countries, or be given nukes by leadership.